US Army's New M10 Booker Tank Tactics
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ม.ค. 2023
- The only investment platform dedicated to art investing: www.masterworks.art/taskandpu...
“Net returns” refers to the annualized internal rate of return net of all fees and costs, calculated from the offering closing date to the sale date. IRR may not be indicative of Masterworks paintings not yet sold and past performance is not indicative of future results. See important Reg A disclosures: www.masterworks.com/about/dis...
The United States new M10 Booker Mobile Protected Firepower platform light tank....thing is outstanding. This video talks about the American Light Tank M10 and how it might be used.
Written By: Chris Cappy
Video Editing by: Michael Michaelides
Task & Purpose is a military news and culture oriented channel. We want to foster discussion about the defense industry.
#TANK #WAR #USARMY
Email chris.capelluto@recurrent.io for inquires.
Thanks for watching spare parts army! The only investment platform dedicated to art investing: www.masterworks.art/taskandpurpose
Cappy my infantry brethren 19K type here , I'm skeptical but anxious to see what it can do , whatever they call it it is a tank , has a turret , Main gun, armor , its a tank ! How they deploy and use it may differ
Thanks Cappy ! Love ya man !
I love your content, but Masterworks is a scam. Please stop promoting them. Thanks.
cappy how do i rejoin the discord server i wasnt banned just missclick ,sorry to bother😃
Scam artworks
No matter how the US Military decides to implement the MPF and new fighting doctrine, if we don't expeditiously and massively increase our domestic weapons and ammo production non of this will matter. We can't keep up with supplying Ukraine the way we have been and NOT critically endanger our own Troops ability to let's say prevent China from taking Taiwan. The problem in the end is up to Congress and We The People need to put pressure on them to make the domestic investments much sooner than later.
The main issue with light tanks is that during training and war games, you tell a commander “main battle tank” they hear “tank. You tell them “light tank” and they hear “tank”. The amount of times Strykers were sent forward for frontline support is insane
I've always admired the way the British solved that with the Universal Carrier, by making sure the armored transport had nothing that resembled a gun, because that way the Cavalry wouldn't try and attack with it.
@@ianwhitchurch864 Like that will stop Armored Calvery
that's a great point it really is an important distinction
@@torg2126 Removing the intelligent part of the Cavalry during motorisation was a mistake.
@@ianwhitchurch864 "Driver move closer, I want to hit them with my sword."
Historically, light tank units had high casualty rates because commanders often use them as real “tank” units.
the difference now is that any tank, real o no, can be eliminated with a portable anti tank missile
@@federicocresci698 only in your dreams
Just a NOTE, during the battle of the bulge in WW 2, the glider boys let the German Tanks pass thru the lines to be handled by effective 105mm Mountain guns in the rear. Meanwhile the M-10 Tank Destroyers deployed using their (not tank) doctrine, defeating the rest of the German attack. The German Tanks sped up separating the covering infantry which was stopped cold by US glider guys.
@federicocresci698 only if they are out of anti-missile munitions, the Booker has an Anti-Missile system. Besides, it is designed as a support unit, not a fully branded MBT, besides MBTs and Bradley's are a heavy attack force, if you put Bradley's and M10s together that's a lighter faster force.
@@federicocresci698 Ok and? Are you saying tanks are obsollete? They are not buddy, if tanks become obsolete because of anti tank weapons, they should have become obsollete allready at ww1 because of anti tank rifles 🤦♂
its just a arms race, plus tanks allready have anti missile meassures, like hard kill, and ERA, or even Spaced Armour and Composite Armour, so really you should be saying that Missiles are useless, and they are only usefull in deffence.
The M4 Sherman was primarily designed to be an INFANTRY SUPPORT TANK, and it did a GREAT job, far better than people realize. The low velocity 75mm was great against fixed targets, hard or soft.
WWII was FILLED with all sorts of cool infantry/tank tactics that actually worked! My favorite was the phone on the back of the M4's, that allowed infantry to talk to the tankers inside. The army just needs to go back to those days, see what they did, and just repeat. No need to re-invent the wheel.
The 105mm was, and STILL IS, and excellent weapon. It was a great idea to bring that back into service.
A tank is a INFANTRY SUPPORT vehicle from definition
the 75mm cannon wasn't low velocity, it was a high velocity cannon but kind of dated at its introduction which caused to to be described as low velocity by german and italian troops.
it also wasn't an infantry support tank, thats a british term, however every main stay tank is used or at least will always be used as an infantru support tank, the main job of the tank is to fight infantry not tanks.
the army does not need to go back to those days, the battlefield has changd entirely. There is a constant need of re-inventing threats and deterrents, it is the nature of war.
Your mindset is exactly why russia is having so much trouble adapting to the threat of drones.
you can't really use WWII US army experience for what works and what doesn't. The soviet army did the fighting and won the war. The US army's only ingenious moment was swarming the beaches of Normandie relying on nothing other than the sheer weight of numbers and losing staggering casualty rates, much more than British rates for instance.
and the soviets had a medium tank that had as much firepower as their enemy's heavy tanks; and the soviet heavies had guns so big they literally just broke the hulls of enemy super heavy tank when not penetrating, were much better protected, and were half the weight of enemy heavies.
WWII DID show that the army with better tanks wins the peer adversary war. The western front was won by the air force, not the army. So, if you are fighting peer adversaries in the future without WWI's absolute and total air superiority to rely on, you better use more capable tanks, not light tanks that have half the capabilities of an Abrams while costing twice as much
So, the army should have put a 75 on this?
It's not LOW velocity cannon, the M3 75mm. It's basically medium velocity gun, it wasn't categorized as low velocity and also high velocity. Low velocity is more of a Howitzer 105mm variant of the Sherman.
The M1 76mm however is a true high velocity gun the US could fit on their Sherman tanks, there were combat reports in Italy or Italian Front before D-Day that the 75mm M3 lacked the power to combat even the Panzer IV at ranges below 1km or 500m, so the Army wrote a report to the US tank arsenal that they need Shermans with 76mm gun be ready for D-Day and onwards, sadly the delivery didn't come in the right time as the Allies already set foot on France and not until August 1944 or late July that the 76mm Shermans appeared in small numbers in Western Front.
The reason stated for not calling it a tank reminds me of a WWII story. Where, by accident Troop Leader Bill Bellamy was mistakenly given a training version of the Cromwell tank. Having gone through france and now into Netherlands the tank crew found out that there tank was not a proper tank after it took some fire from an anti-aircraft gun. However, despite orders to swap it for an actually armoured Cromwell, the crew elected to stick with their "lucky" tank. In the end it did turn out to be lucky when they were forced to jump a 20ft canal running from enemy fire, their faster than normal Cromwell made the jump more easily than the rest of the troop. And the entire crew ended up surviving the war.
I worked with light infantry in Korea in my M60a3. We had never trained together, and boom, was thrown in to working with them. I was always scared to death of running over one of the grunts. Training will be key, and it would be a good idea to have the MPF guys always train with the units they'll support.
When in military, we had a tracked vehicle run over a soldier, who actually survived. Apparently the ground happened to be soft.
In the 80’s my tank platoon was assigned a company of infantry. We worked side by side and it worked. Only thing we hated was the infantry LT thinking we belong to him when we had our own. We had our way of doing things and we’re not grunts. Never get off the tank!
@@jameslovelace8958 this is german doctrine since the 1930s. Nothing special. The Panzertruppe works along MBTs and Panzergrenadiere with IFVs and both together and Jäger light infantry pushing the flanks
I've run over tons of people, don't worry, you get over them... You're in a Vehicle, of Course you Can Drive Over Them, and you'll be Fine...
@@stevenbrenner2862 I cringed reading that. Hell naw
Dude, you've hit your stride. Your videos are absolutely packed with informative details that make the big picture click. Thank you for your work.
And yet, he gives his videos really strange titles that nobody can figure out the meaning to, like 'America's New "Light Tank" Needs to Chill Out'
@@MrAsh1989 TH-cam channel success and monetization are driven by views, views are driven by clicks. The attention grabbing thumbnail and title games are a result of this.
If you're blame gonna blame anyone, blame TH-cam, most major youtubers are now going this route. Still good quality content.
@@twrecks1050 too true 👍 people forget the oldest simplest question : who profits ?
Seems like not only do the rules change whenever YT shareholders throw a tantrum, but more moving parts are added that only further pushes Creators into presenting themselves or content in a way that suits the current algorithm.
Some people hear things like this and aren't familiar with Corporations 🙍 they hear negativity where there's simple fact.
@@twrecks1050 Nah I'll blame him thanks.
@@MrAsh1989 if you can’t figure out what the titles mean then thats pretty sad lmao. also, why are you trying to determine what the videos about without watching it. stop being lazy.
In WWII tanks very used effectively as light infantry support by both sides. They were used effectively to break through hardened defenses and rout smaller forces. Sometime after WWII the doctrine changed and they became somewhat standoff battlefield weapons. Yes, they are maneuverable, but tank doctrine was centered around tank to tank combat. At least based on all the books I have read about tank doctrine during the cold war. There was an arms race to make tanks that can easily bust other tanks, and the mission of close combat support took a back seat.
I totally agree, it seems we focused heavily on the heavy tank. Which means increased price tag, more materials, and fuel. If we would fight against another peer with heavy tank losses. Would we be able to make up the loss in a quick time? Which is the concern of smart munitions. The Germans ran into that problem when focused on their legacy tanks like the tigers.
IDF Merkava's got toasted by IEDs and RPGs by Hamas in Gaza. Most tank casualties in Ukraine are from missiles and drones. I think the problem is that US tank doctrine is based on the premise of the Cold War turning hot and expecting massive Kursk-like tank battles, which is rendered obsolete by the geopolitical changes over the last 3 decades, as well as proliferation of drones
Back in the day, Ft Drum (10th Mountain LI home base) was also used by NY National Guard tank units for their Summer training. Hopefully those ranges are still there, so having a MPF battalion train with the 10th should not be an issue.
As a former infantryman from 2005-2009, I can say from personal experience that I agree with the fact that the Army put *WAY* too much emphasis on Battle Drill 6 lol. I am *in love* with the idea of calling in more high-precision, long-range firepower as one of the infantry's primary tasks, instead of "enter building, clear room".
As a vegan from 2001-2007 i disagree
Honestly if I signed up, Battle Drill 6 would be my favorite thing to do in the military.
Don't worry we can compromise by also practicing battle drill 1A
@@VastGameMaster Go Combat Enginer you will use Battle Drill Blow a giant hole in the building and burst the enemies ear drums. Way safer and more fun.
BUT I LOVE MOUT DRILLS!
I'm really glad the US military is filling this gap so quickly with what looks to be a competent vehicle! It will be interesting to see how the new fighting doctrine evolves in the next few years.
I once read an article from Defense news stating they plan to eventually field something like 500-600 of these
Quickly? They've been trying this for over 30 years.
@@messagesystem333 that's pretty fast for DOD. Haha
This is a step back in humanity to WW2 tactics of indiscriminate destruction. Instead of clearing a house that may be full of civilians, overzealous commanders will just blow up the house, children or no children inside. Just like Russian doctrine in Ukraine.
My favorite part is that it has a wired phone on the back corner so the infantry can just grab it and talk directly to the MPFs crew, easier than talking over radio if the comms aren't set up perfectly or the enemy has radio jamming in the area. Also there's numerous small cameras around so the driver can be mindful of friendly infantry.
So, essentially, the MPF is a future StuG for the United States Army, minus the fixed cannon. The StuG was extremely effective👍
True
Definitely not a real tank, kinda , a mini merkavah. Glad to have served in a cold war MBT. Not a toy tank!
Agreed- I thought the same thing when I first heard about the M10
Funny you say that when the stug would end up having it's original purpose ignored once it was used to supplement panzer 4 losses.
Excellent as always!...thank you!
As a desert storm tanker veteran, I can tell you that that 105 mm main gun will slice right through an export T-72. And that was with the lowest performing main gun ammunition of the three different types that we had. So all but the best current tanks would be vulnerable to this weapon system.
Dear Ryan, with all due respects, what function did you serve in? Also, most t-72 are now equipped with Explosive reactive armor, which plays a huge role against most sabot rounds, especially those of a 105 cannon. But that cannon is as you said, no joke nonetheless.
@@playoffmodesp2536 I was a tank commander and platoon leader. Reactive armor is effective only against HEAT (i.e. shaped charge) rounds and rpg's etc... Also, in Ukraine we see that either tanks don't have reactive armor or corruption has inert blocks of crap bolted in place of actual reactive armor.
It's likely the MPF won't be used against tanks, IBCTs should already have Javelins or Carl Gustavs to deal with tanks.
@@koolski I know that ERA is primally used in defense of Heat shapes, but we were thaught that the newer russian reactive armour developments could hinder the penetrative abilities of our APFSDS-T rounds because the tungsten rods get particularly febrile when there's a pre-detonation and that can cause the ERA panel to snap the point of the Dart depending if you're using Tungsten or Uranium points. Then again, I believe we shoot faster ammunition than you guys do (Leopard 2 A4) since we use a different gun than most Abrams tanks' that surely also plays a role as a slower sabot round has less chances of being stopped by ERA.
@@koolski and personally I haven't seen a Russian tank in Ukraine without ERA, if the panels are as advertized and loaded with explosive charges however, that I do not know.
According to The Chieftain a big advantage the thing gives is having thermal optics. They can spot even small drones flying around fairly easily, and drones seem to be a big part of any modern combat.
And it's got small cameras all around it to enable the crew to see the supporting infantry… and not squish them.
I wonder if they'll give it a limited dispersal submunition round do it can shoot down said drones easily
Okay. Why can't an IFV do that while also being able to perform other roles like medevac, etc? The US is about to learn that the Bradley is still a good vehicle but they're committed to upgrading anyhow. So why not just have 2-3 different variants of a new IFV with the 40-50mm bushmaster and AT missiles with advanced optics? They already do that with Bradley.
This light tank feels like a Pentagon pet project. Another very expensive one. The US needs to get away from heavy vehicles. Set an absolute limit of 25-30 tons and get them deployed in good numbers for paratroopers, etc. It's like they learned nothing from WW2 and the Sherman. Numbers will almost always own the day. Especially when you need to move things across oceans.
The chieftain needs to get some proper audio equipment if he keeps standing in huge empty factory halls and filming from half a mile away.
@@antonnurwald5700 ahhah
I like the idea of the MPF. When I was in the army the main battle tank weighted 50 tons. A 70 ton Abrams means every bridge must be 40% stronger. That's a tall order in an area that has not been prepared in advance. I'm assuming the fuel consumption won't be as insane as the Abrams either.
Exactly. Plus you just don't need a main battle tank for everything.
@@tommygun5038 Naw man the Abrams tank has way better armaments and armor than this steel coffin dunno what you're talking about
@@benginaldclocker2891....Who said it wasn't??
@@tommygun5038 You're implying that this sorry excuse of a tank can do what the Abrams can, but better, which is not true. The Abrams can do everything better because of its superior armaments.
@@tommygun5038 The US Military is getting stupider and more woke everytime they come up of a new equipment to use.
Man, I joined the Army and was assigned to the 82 ABN the same year that the Sheridan were retired from service. I’ll never forget watching them get dropped from 800ft AGL!! And I totally agree that the MPF should be co-located with their Infantry Divisions. FT Bragg can support armor because the NG unit on FT Bragg is a mech unit. The fire breaks on Bragg can take the traffic.
I think its critical that the tanks should be *part* of the unit not separate. The tank crew should be eating lunch with the infantry. You want them to be buddies and to work hand in glove. If you're going to have 12 tonne tracked vehicles running a few feet from squishy humans you want the operator of that vehicle to be really familiar with the people outside and to know that hank there has a bit of a sore leg today so he's not going to get out of the way as quick as he usually would when you hit the horn. The same in reverse too the people outside need to know and trust the crews inside deeply.
I remember the Sheridan. As an M60 tanker, we had the following observation: "Every tank is air-droppable...once."
They have been trying to get a light tank to replace the Sheridan since the 80s. I personally saw prototypes in the late 80s and early 90s. One interesting design had the crew in the hull, with completely automatic turret. The idea was that they wanted at least a 105mm gun that could go into a C-130. The 82nd went to Saudi Arabia in 1990 and would have not have the capacity to stop the Iraqis if they invaded just after Kuwait. General Vuono tried to get one fielded before the end of his Army Chief of Staff tour.
We really _do_ need an Airborne/Amphibious light tank, but this is neither. For all the losses the Russians have taken in their BMD's, they still delivered bigger guns where the crunchies needed them and provided heavy machine gun protection. This seems more of an over-specialized BMP-3 hunter that they're trying to find a market for, and just said 'Oh yeah, it's...um...an Infantry support vehicle! Yeah, that's it...'
Wait we used the Sheridan?
@@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing That requires the Marines and the Airborne to agree on something... The sun will go out before that occurs.
@@jgw9990 I find your statement to be scientifically accurate.
@@srinivarma1320 yes in vietnam
The Chieftan did a walk around of the MPF and talked about how it may be used. It is not a light tank. Also so many mods have been made it no longer has much in common with Ajax. The Chieftan asked this question.
General Dynamics is going to do a great job with the MPF after all the changes have been made I think. They are doing a lot of PR work to distance themselves from the AJAX because of the problems it had in the media. It could have very little in common with the AJAX at this point that could be true.
It's a tank
@@Taskandpurpose Personally I believe that the MPF is more based on the last version of the original ASCOD platform, which is similar to the 2nd batch for the Spanish Army that have not reported those noise problems, neither the Austrian version. Also Philippines receiving the Sabrah Light Tank seems to have overcome those problems definitely. Hope that GDELS overcome whatever is happening with the brits version.
Leave it to my branch to rename something that didn't need to be renamed. I'm sure some Major became a Colonel for coming up with 'MPF'. It's a self propelled gun, bois.
An M35 gun that big-dicks the expensive Autocannon arms race of IFV-like platforms. They have been looking for a way to successfully sell this cannon since the 80's, and now they have it.
@@cgmason7568
Define tank.
@ anyone who disagrees it is a tank. Also, define tank.
I remember when the 82nd had the Sheridan it had its limitations, they worked closely with the infantry and both mutually support each other...in the end.
As always nice reporting CC!
I hope and PRAY that the US Army works out their differences between Armour and Infantry soon. We might soon be needing this cooperation sooner then you think.
As a recently retired 1st Cav guy (who split the post with 4th ID) and Brad platoon daddy, this claim of a lack of infantry/armor combined arms efficiency is extremely incorrect to me. We do it quite well, IMO.
I'm not seeing where this vehicle fits at all outside of Motorized Infantry formations with light armor, just needing a bigger gun in the formation. And we're already ditching the Strykers.
@@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing it’s for island hopping against China. That’s what it was designed for.
@@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing you're mistaken sir, the Army is NOT ditching the Stryker, Stryker Combat Brigades are expected to serve till at least 2040! This new vehicle is actually the Bradley's replacement, it's designed to carry either a 120, 105, or 50 mm canon along with 6 infantry men and it has the ability to operate as an unmanned drone, extremely versatile platform.
@@BRAINFxck10 To clarify, I was referring to the Stryker mobile gun system, the only other thing to use that M35 105mm gun derived from the M68. They're already phased out of 2nd and 4th ID AFAIK.
I thought this was a reupload, then I realized that Ryan MacBeth had gone over this “not a tank”. You’re right up there, man!
Please define "tank"
@@shanerooney7288 Definition - an armored vehicle that can take a main gun round >to the face< and be expected to survive. Please forgive me for the 3rd grade definition, but that's pretty much it, in a nutshell. 👍
@@greggkemp5985
There are plenty of tanks that can't do that.
And a few non-tanks that can.
@@greggkemp5985 "an armored vehicle that can take a main gun round >to the face< and be expected to survive"
That means tanks are basically not a thing.
A tracked, armoured vehicle with a cannon is absolutely a tank. The American obsession with calling only MBTs tanks is getting more and more absurd. The fuck is the point of calling it an "MBT" when that is synonymous with tank?
@@XMysticHerox LOL, my money says a Paladin (M109 series) wouldn't survive a 105mm hit to the front. Guys, let's be real, a tank is like a crack whore - you know one when you see one. Or you should at least.
The Sheridan is one of my favorite tanks because the gun is just hilarious. "Private, do you see that building over there?" "Yes Commander." "I don't want to." "Roger that sir." *Sends a 155mm HE shell through a concrete wall*
WOW, GREAT JOB! Very informative.
It kind of sounds like they are recalling the most common use of the venerable Sherman, taking out machine guns and bunkers. Yes, it was vulnerable to very heavy tanks, but it seldom fought them. Most of the ammo they shot was high explosive.
Exactly, seems like a Bradley can do those things quite well. Just throw a 105MM onto a Stryker
@@bocadelcieloplaya3852 hmm they tried that already with the MGS on styrker platform...discontinued
@@bocadelcieloplaya3852 "seems like a Bradley can do those things quite well"
Autocannons are not exactly effective against fortifications. I mean you can take them out but a 105mm would be able to do so faster and from longer range. Which can be quite relevant if the enemy posseses meaningful AT weaponry.
@@XMysticHerox Tru. 105 beats 25 like guns beat knives.
I guess they couldn't throw a 105 onto a dedicated Bradley platform? Bradley MGS, Not an IFV then.
@@bocadelcieloplaya3852 After the experience with the Stryker they probably don't want to. Trying to do huge modifications to vehicles like that tends to be messy.
Also the Bradley is being replaced anyways so thats probably also a factor.
“It’s time to make peace with one another so we can make war together”😂 love him 😂
hooOoOah
Tale as old as time!
Maybe it would help to think of the MPF in a similar way to how the MG34/42 was deployed in a WWII German infantry squad (the primary weapons system of that level of unit, with the rest of the unit trained in and deploying to support it), as opposed to looking at it as an armored asset that happens to be assigned to the infantry. I think that's where the doctrinal team is going (though the specifics will depend on the level at which individual MPFs will be deployed; 1 per platoon (I doubt they'd go as small as 1 per squad), 1 per company, more, etc.).
I agree. But where is the diff to mech infantry (Panzergrenadiers)? The whole purpose of light inf is to be light. It seems to me that this new tank is a move to canibalize the tasks of mech inf.
@@juanzulu1318 Indeed. I see a number of ways where this could easily go awry and just end up in the MPF units being used as anything but direct infantry support.
Thank you guys for wah
So basically we've gone full circle to the 1930-40's British Tank philosophy of the 'Cavalry tank' and 'Infantry tank'. Cavalry to move fast, hit hard and take on other tanks, Infantry to provide a big, hard mobile pillbox to assist infantry in destroying fortifications, positions and other general boots on ground stuff.
It's not full circle because the British idea of the infantry tank was something powerful and heavily armored and good at crossing trenches that wouldn't have move much faster than the infantry. And their idea of a cavalry tank was something faster, lighter, and with a long range, that could with vigor exploit breakthroughs. Now, bizarrely, our infantry tank will be light and fast, and our cavalry tank with be big and slow -- a gas guzzler that's too heavy for many bridges. It's backwards now...
@@polarvortex3294 The Abrams have an ungoverned speed of 60 mph, the governed speed of both is about the same. They are big and fast. But the added weight comes at the cost of limited deployment options and more fuel/maintenance costs. Trench warfare is obsolete, but pillboxes are still a thing. So I think we came almost full circle. It is not an old school mobile pillbox, as it is small and fast, not small and slow. But it still comes close to the infanterie tank idea.
@@mennovanlavieren3885 ungoverned/governed top speed is not the determining factor of a tank's mobility, its weight it. doesn't matter how fast an abrams can go if it can't cross a bridge without engineers reinforcing it first. same speed or not, an abrams will not outrun a lighter vehicle if the road crumbles underneath it as it goes
@@tabula_rosa we don't gotta outrun much. Just outgun it.
@@mennovanlavieren3885 Ukraine tends to disagree, trench warfare is still very much a big deal.
This was done before after WWII. The US Army had developed the M41 Walker Bulldog after the war for it's forces overseas in Europe and Japan as limited armor firepower for their infantry. General Patton and Bradley experimented with this idea back in the 1920s from their experience during WWI using French FT-1 during the Allied offensive of 1918 when breaking through the Hindenburg Line into Germany. The M41 Walker Bulldog was already in Japan and Hawaii when the Korean War broke out. Units of the 25th INF in Hawaii, 24th INF, and 1st Cavalry in Japan were loaded on ships bound for Korea immediately along with some left over M4 Shermans. The M41 was lighter and faster than the Sherman and armed with a 75mm high velocity gun. It was suited for infantry support. The Army had a few Regimental Combat Teams that were sent later but added a tank battalion with M41s and Shermans. These were the early Brigade Combat Teams as the Army calls them today. Old ideas come out to be used again. The Korean War was the template for the modern Rapid Reaction Force of today. The 82nd Airborne used to have the M551 Sheridan since Vietnam till the First Gulf War and never had a light armored force since then. The 82nd Airborne wants to bring that back for their divisional ready brigade.
Great comment & much of what you say is true, but I believe you made a few mistakes. The M41 Walker Bulldog has always been one of my favorite tanks, (I have several plastic & diecast models) so I know a little bit about it. It was armed with a 76mm gun, (76 mm M32A1 rifled cannon) not a 75mm. And the M41 was definitely NOT already in Japan and Hawaii when the Korean War broke out. (June 25th, 1950) Cadillac repurposed a warehouse in Cleveland in August 1950 and began outfitting the location. The first production M41 was delivered in March 1951 & the first 8 Bulldogs were delivered to the US Army in July, 1951. Actually the M41 didn't fight in the Korean war. By March 1952 over 900 M41s had been manufactured, but they entered service too late to take part in the Korean War. The M41 was used extensively in the Vietnam War, by ARVN. In regards to the Korean War, I think you might have confused the M41 & the M24 Chaffee? (which looks similar to the M41, has a 75mm gun, and was used extensively in the Korean War)
@@Jim_Jones_Guyana Yes I forgot about the M24 Chaffee. Great correction. 👍👍👍
I came here just to mention the Sheridans, glad you said them aswell
History is repeating itself. This new tank was created to fill the exact same role as light tanks did during WWII. If they could make them remotely controlled, units could have more firepower with fewer crews.
@@incubus_the_man Coming soon to a theater near you... 🙄🤘👍✌
As always, great analysis Chris! Currently in training making this whole process and the use of this new platform extremely relevant.
Great idea, and doctrine-wise reminds me of the StuGs and how their doctrines therefor priorities were so very different, especially the StuG IIIs/IVs that were so good in the role of infantry gun for breaking through strongpoints and fortified areas, but also easily able to take Allied tank out particularly through the sides and back.
I feel like going with an IFV such as the CV90 and then a light/medium tank version such as the CV90120 would have made more logistical sense rather than going with a light tank version of the Ajax (especially considering all the issues with the Ajax). Especially since the BAE offering of the CV90120 would come with a 120 mm gun.
No, because this is a support vehicle not supposed to engage MBT.
So a 120 mm gun its only a burden.
the capabilities to operate to direct contact with infantry (so vision etc) its more important
The army required a 105mm cannon that was newly designed. They are currently working on the Bradley replacement which will likely be armed with the 50mm super shot ammo. The new fighting vehicle and this light tank should surpass anything currently fielded. The cv90 was part of the competition, though modified , and it is still an option for the OMFV. Though I think the griffin 3 mod will win the contract.
@@fredsmith9714 Makes sense they would go with a similar IFV, if they went with this vehicle in this competition. Going with two different platforms wouldn't make much sense.
Honestly wish they'd consign the Ajax to the failed projects bin.
You can carry substantially more ammo for the 105mm than a 120, also it affects the capabilities and size of the turret. A 120mm would sacrifice a significant amount of the vehicle's intended utility for a slight increase in ability to destroy tanks by firing at frontal armor which it shouldn't be doing anyway. It is still more than capable of destroying main battle tanks if it gets a shot on the side, and if it doesn't doesn't have a favorable position the infantry can use javelins or NLAWs to deal with the threat. I think the design is great, it was intended to replace the striker MGS and it will do just that.
In the 80’s we had combine arms units. A company of infantry had a platoon of tanks integrated into it. We worked along side the infantry and did the things you are saying this track is going to do. We used M60A3’s in this.
WTF do you think a BCT is? Whatever, old timer.
Germany did this in 40ies with STUG III
..and those were MBTs NOT light tanks. That's my concern, and historically has been the Army's concern and experience in WW2 and Korea. This is too lightly armed and armored to do more than a fire-support role-IF it stays there it might have some use.
I was in a COLT 82nd ABN early 90’s trained often with Artillery, mortars, CAS, Air Cav… and Sheridans and helped coordinate fires for Light Infantry. All for a war in Europe. It was awesome! Needs to be revisited, obviously
AATW
I believe that Cavalry is better suited to create a modern doctrine for the infantry when coordinating armor with boots on the ground. They also are experts coordinating logistics for multiple mobile assets.
Plus horses are cute
Assault gun might be a more accurate description than light tank when you consider the weight and purpose of the vehicle
The same role in doctrine as stug had when it was designed.
or using the original (german) word.. sturmgeschutz😛
That’s it
For a vehicle weighing 40t with no infantry carrying reqs you'd think there'd be budget for an autocannon ala BMP3, that might have been useful given the role...
No. Assault guns were heavily armored and meant to take punishment while closing to range. This ain’t that.
Correction: ~500 is the total number of MPF systems the army plans to procure, not the number of systems in a single battalion. Each battalion will likely have fewer than 50 systems.
The number is 42 per Battalion.
This dude seriously mis-represents most of the information he "researched" and fails to bring accurate reports to those who choose to watch his crap (I call him Crappy) and think that they are somehow more informed than they would have been if they had simply read the Wikipedia article he did
(OK, so maybe he also reads the "Stars and Bars" magazine reviews, but seriously?).
@@paratrooper629 I think you might see 16 MPF's per company, based on the posted (Congression Research Service) requirement of 64 armor crewmen per company. If they go with 3 companies per battalion, that would be 48 light tanks. I guess we will see when it actually happens.
500 light tanks must be the extra extra heavy nuclear grade battalion, lol.
I noticed that as well. I thought the usual tank battalion had around 42 tanks, not 500.
Wow TH-cam just took down the Marder piece.
Excellent production, well done good sir!!
17:30, wasn't just demoralizing for the enemy but a massive moral boost for allies. Sends shivers down your spine and lights a fire in your heart when you got the big guns supporting you, and by big guns im talking 20mm to 120mm only a dozen or more yards away, not airsupport or artillery, though I doubt ill ever meet a guy that didn't appreciated a hawg or apache/viper giving very close and intimate best buddy airsupport.
I love the idea of light tanks being embedded with infantry. Brings a whole new level of capabilities.
Historically, the problem has been a "light tank" being pushed into the role of MBT, due to ignorance of capes, or exigency, where they have neither the firepower nor protection to execute. This is why, well and the Army's experience with the M551 in combat, that light tanks have not been emphasized for almost a half-century
Basically the concept behind Germany's StuG (i.e. Sturmgeschütz) in WW2.
A whole OLD level of capability. We've just gotten used to building tanks too big and not using them properly.
@@captainkong vulnerable to RPG lolol
@@prathyushareddy9404 and the other tanks are not? With no people to carry you can increase the ammount of armor.
Great stuff!
Good on you Cappy for championing the infantry support armour.
Same with the M10 with it's 3-inch gun in Italy 90 percent of the ammo used was HE in both very long range strikes the length of Valleys in the daytime and high angle indirect fires at night to hit road junctions the Germans were moving supplies through. They would have piles of ammo behind the dug in positions waiting to be used.
Insane - integration & new doctrine a must. Create ranges/training facilities to accommodate the new tactics. In fact, reshuffle the status quo. Talking in terms of base locations & current composition of units. Great vid dude.
This is a step back in humanity to WW2 tactics of indiscriminate destruction. Instead of clearing a house that may be full of civilians, overzealous commanders will just blow up the house, children or no children inside. Just like Russian doctrine in Ukraine.
thanks for watching glad you found the video useful!
Why don't we just build more factories? Put more Americans to work...
@@williamyoung9401As an amateur military enthusiast who is looking at colleges for and engineering degree, you’d be surprised at the amount of people who take serious opposition to creating military tech. Though I will say I can’t blame them too much
This smells like the light cruiser concept from Jacky Fisher's Royal Navy reform. Build something lightweight and fast, but skimp on armor and give it a big gun. The problem always is that field commanders can't resist the temptation to deploy that handy-dandy gun in the line of fire, resulting in unsustainable damage from the enemy's heavier forces.
Better to be overused than underused
It needs to have clear usage doctrine.
That's why you sack commanders
Great vehicle. I'm proud to have worked on and continue to work on it
Respect! This was you at your best!
This the something the Army has wanted since the 1980s and they finally got it! I cannot wait for the up armor kit reveal and the fancy new 105mm ammo they are going to create.
HSTV-L was better
Hopefully they get a 105mm version of the new multipurpose round.
"red circle" LOL love the thumbnail
Very interesting concept and change in terms of army light infantry doctrine. How does this affect and impact the existing use of Bradley’s?
That cliffhanger... eagerly waiting for the next episode.
Good point with having the MPF units stationed with their infantry unit. After my 11M years i served as a 25V and our unit was stationed at Ft Bragg but located at Ft Mcpherson. So when we needed a battery replaced we had to go to Ft Bragg and not down the hall to our parent unit/battalion. Very frustrating. never mind training for your real world mission, that would be unbearable.
Another issue predicted in future conflict is extreme jamming of communications. So things like line of sight laser or close in comm systems maybe the only functional at all times. Meaning an MPF would be easier to contact than air support.
Frequency hopping radios can only be jammed at very close range.
Speaking in theory, a small drone that pops up could provide that. And 5km of fiber optic cable weighs about the same as one 155mm shell - it'd be possible to treat the comms line going back to your unit's pet Suzana/PzH2000/whatever as a disposable.
@@ianwhitchurch864 that much fiber optic would weigh over 8k pounds, and EXTREMELY expensive that much fiber optic would cost upwards of 66k dollars
Having worked with fiber optic cables, they are not light, a foot of wire weighs about a half pound to a pound
Then on top of that you gotta secure the wire and make sure its safe from being split open, so you'd have to dig, taking up men and resources, in the civilian world, it can cost up to 100-120k dollars just to lay a mile of fiber optic cable
@@nicholasbrown668 Why on earth are you bothering to dig in a temporary cable that links a firing position to it's artillery ?
@@ianwhitchurch864 because the military digs and buries cable during wartime? Specifically to stop wired communications from being cut, if you leave your wire above ground thats just BEGGING for sabotage or an artillery shell to hit and cut off a units entire means of communication
Also leaving fiber optic exposed above ground while active can literally damage it, so not only would you break your entire units means of communication, you would also damage or destroy over 100k in equipment
This was very interesting. It is surprising that what worked in the past is circling back to what works now, with adjustments. Thank you and have a good day. PS The MPF might not have a role fighting main battle tanks but it will happen, it always happens.
If you know about the M24 Chaffee light tank during late WWII and Korean War them you should know that the Booker is basically a Chaffee in modern era. The Chaffee had thin armor, high mobilty but for a light tank for its time had 75mm medium velocity gun, same gun from the Sherman tank, for a light tank it had firepower to support infantry and if there's enemy tanks could escape with its speed and probably cause enough damage with its gun while flanking enemy tank formation. Granted the Chaffee wasn't a tank destroyer.
I appreciate the time, energy and research you put into your productions.
🙋🏾♂️ Good looking piece of equipment.
a beautiful piece of machinery no doubt wish this was around when I was still in
Another excellent video! Having a reliable platform like the Booker would make a game-changing difference! Full respect and thanks for the service to all US servicemen and women, past or present, from your humble NATO ally - Bulgaria
Really hoping this Vehicle will work to our advantage!!!!!. Good Job CAPPY
Bradley's can kill armor, via TOW. I know there are anti-tank rounds in the 105 mm NATO ammo supply, so this is not just a bunker buster, it has to be able to defend from enemy armor, like a self-propelled anti-tank gun, when nessisary....
It'll probably be armed with TOW as well.
@@halilkunge9295 More likely Javelin. TOW is an older system that is on it’s way out. Although no plans have been made to phase them out, I doubt that TOW will continue to see service with the US into the 2040s.
105mm nato has a tough time defeating modern ERA systems
@@MPdude237 Javelin is a man operated system
@@tnk.2033 No. There are Strykers with a Javelin mounted on the remote weapons system with the 50 cal.
TOW will certainly be phased out due to the superiority of the Javelin in all field. TOW requires standing still with constant line of sight to the target while Javelin is fire and forget, shoot and scoot, which makes much more sense for a vehicle that is not meant to fight tanks head on. For infantry it is the same thing, TOW is not mobile due to it's massive weight of over 90kg (200lbs) just for the launcher alone, while the the javelin weighs just over 22kg (49lbs) while ready to fire.
A great vid Chris, really interesting, you should read up in the British Army’s use of CVR(T) in the infantry support role, particularly Scorpion and Scimitar. 2 Para’s assault on wireless ridge, use in both Gulf Wars and in Afghanistan. I was the Sgt Maj of the first CVR(T) Sqn to deploy to Afghan and the affect in the battlefield, supporting the infantry is a game changer
I was in the Army for the wonder , awesome piece of equipment the M551A1 and oddly when maintained they worked great. If the person you replaced was a slacker you could be facing serious PM issues.
Wonder if Marines will be getting these as well, or perhaps the AAV replacements is what they have in mind to fill this role
Aren't the mw Bradley and Stryker meant for this role? A "light" vehicle that can support infantry. I would argue they would be better because the 105mm cannon is over kill considering they're not meant to fight armored vehicles. The autocannoms I think would have been better
the Stryker can only stop a 50 cal, this stops 30mm. the Bradley can stop 30mm but its cannon isn't powerful enough for some buildings and fortifications. thats part of the US armys thinking (i think)
I think part of it is thinking in terms of structural damage. It would take a LOT of 30 or 25mm autocannon fire to knock over a building or bunker. Killing vehicles just requires you to hit key components like turrets, engines, treads, wheels, etc. Those can be done with an autocannon. Taking out a building? That means structural compromise, and that means actual cannon fire.
@@Taskandpurpose The doctrinal role for MPF seems to be the same as Stug had when it was designed. As such assault gun might be better way to describe it rather than light tank.
Light infantry are for doing combat in places ground combat vehicles can't easily operate. In all other places, just add more armored, mechanized or motorized infantry, aligned with tanks, assault guns, mobile protected guns whatever. This isn't that difficult to figure out!
they are. but the new batch of retiring generals need to get rich so...
Most of the "New Ideas and procedures" are actually reinvented (cause it goes well on OERs) drills we used to do. If we returned to a more regimental system like our old cold war ACRs we'd solve most of these branches training together issues. We had no problems in the CAV but we keep getting infantry commanders...
Amazing
I have been wondering about the Marines when it ces to this. The US have been using them as a second army, and I know they have been changing tactics for more of an island hopping campaign, but I fill the need something like the MPF/light tank that is both amphibious and airlift capable. They where going to get one in the 60s called the HSTV-L, but it was a joint venture with the army and they wanted it to have a 90mm cannon instead of a 75mm one. It used an XM274 auto cannon that used cased telescoped ammunition and had a fire rate of 60 rpm, to me it sounded perfect for the Marines in my opinion. With lessons learned in the 60s they could improve on it.
Your last point reminds me of something frequently said by Ian McCollum on Forgotten Weapons. Armies have on multiple occasions made the mistake of getting new equipment that would have been perfect for the last war, but end up very poorly suited to the next one. It sounds like at least some of the people involved are trying to account for that error in advance (the MPF and NGSW rifle being examples thereof) but whether they will succeed only time will tell. Having the right tools doesn't matter if you don't have the skills and training to use them correctly.
@jamesmitchem7 No idea except I'm sure it's lower than Afghanistan. Urban combat is almost always inside 100 yards while Ukraine is heavily forested compared to Afghanistan. In Afghanistan soldiers reported that being engaged from more than 700 yards while out in the desert or hills was normal. In a forest 200 yards is a long shot because you can't see something farther away.
That problem exists because the commanding officers of the larger line units made their bones in the LAST WAR. So they may know how to fight the LAST WAR but NOT this war. The military should not be looking for niche weapon systems. RATHER it should be looking for multi-role/multi-mission weapon systems. US Military should look seriously at the Israeli Merkeva tank. It is part tank/part troop carrier/part ambulance.
OR they could be thinking about some sort of having multiple different role (even slightly) armored fighting vehicles Abrams, bradley, Stryker M10???
The red circle had me a good laugh
This is really a capability gap that’s been around for about 70 yrs (Sheridan was never widely fielded and IFVs / MGS don’t really perform the role). The Army was on the final steps of fielding a good Inf support light tank in the 1990s called the M8 Armored Gun System (AGS) before it was shit canned (I think for budget reasons). It was so close to fielding, they had even published the FMs for its employment (I still have them in my digital library). I was an Armor officer at that time and knew people who were involved in R&D and testing of the platform. These “light tanks” are really what used to be called Assault Guns in WWII designed specifically for direct support of IN; they function very differently than MTBs on the battlefield.
They should definitely called this tonk "M1" to differentiate it from two thousands other pieces of equipment call "M1"
Only thing i know isn't called M1 is the bloody trucks.
@@davidty2006 except from Kenworth M1 🤣
Thanks cappy
This reminds me of the WWII German Infantry support gun- the STUG..that also seems to have been pushed into other uses..Antitank etc..Its just hard not to use what you have..a mobile big gun is a lovely thing for Infantry to have around
thx
War is clearly complicated. Thanks for an introduction as to how complicated it really is. Really complicated when you're in the infantry getting attacked. Great explanation.
I remember the Sheridan at NTC and despite its problem it was a light and portable platform.
It's just amazing how these points the good Captain made sound just like those from both World Wars, Korea and Vietnam. The specific language may be different but the points are the same.
I like how on one of the ads it says "find what you're looking for on bumble" whilst they're shaking body is shaking their head no like he knows he's lying but doing it for the cash 😂
I could say that the MPF armed with the XM360 cannon would eventually allow for easier logistics with the M1 series of Abrams Tanks, not just for 120mm cannon rounds, but also for the XM360 cannon parts as well.
I was thinking this exact thing.. bc the original m1 Abrams had a 105mm cannon if I recall right and was retrofitted to house the 120mm. So if they can do that there why can't they here. It will add alot more capabilities to this platform. The ability to be a true qrf against all threats. Plus ease logistical issues. Why have 105mm parts and ammo and 120mm supplies, when you can just have the 120mm shit.. would cut supply and logistical issues in half .. maybe we should work for the Pentagon R&D... Hahah
@@derekwillbanks5645 How much does that add to the weight and how many fewer rounds can it carry?
Put the 120mm on a light tank probably would have increased its weight beyond the maximum that the Army wanted. Because if you can only move 1 light tank on a C-17, might as well just send in an M-1.
@@zyeborm from what I can tell on my research the actual 120mm gun only weighs like 1000-1500lbs more than yhe 105mm.. and I think the advantages in power, performance and simplicity and simplified logistics of only needing the 120mm gun, ammo and parts compared to having to double it with all the 105 shit too bc it's not like you can simply use a 105mm howitzers and artillery ammo in the tank cannon. It would probably save so much money and headaches logistically... Oh wait its the govt.... Nvm it's either getting a 105mm or 50mm. Something. Completely new and needing supply and logistics... I'm thinking smarter and better not like the government... I would try to think like the govt but don't think I can get my head that far up my ass.
@@Kriss_L I doubt that would be much of an issue if the M8 AGS had won the MPF competition instead.
A good alternative that France has developped on their side is the Scorpion program with a light tank that have limited maintenance, wheels chassis, sufficient fire power, great mobility, no need for 105 caliber, good survavibility and also could transport some infantery. In brief, it's a mix between Light tank and APC. Much easier for logistic. AMX 10 RC was good also to be used with infantery but still heavy and also the trainings are, for no reasons separated.
I served with one of this vehicle's namesakes. Then SGT S. Booker was my first gunner in 3rd ID when I graduated basic training. Great man and a terrible loss for the Army. Love the fact that they honored him in this way. Abrams Approves!
I spent about 10 years on the Sheridan, M60A1, M60A2, M60A3, and the XM1. The most effective use of Armor and Infantry/Cavalry I saw was when I was stationed in Europe and the US in and Armored Cavalry Troop, We had a combined arms team of Scouts and Tankers on 6 M551A1, a squad of Infantry on an M113A1, and an Heavy Mortar Infantry crew on a M106A1. The interoperability and training at the Platoon, Troop, and Squadron levels proved that constant combined arms training between Armor, Infantry, as well as Artillery, and Close Air Support is vital for success. Training Training and Training together is the only way all the various branches will build a successful doctrine.
In the 1930 and into WW2 the British had cruiser tanks and infantry tanks. Infantry tanks were intended to provide close support for the infantry and cruiser tanks were intended to fulfill the roll of the cavalry - breakthrough and exploitation. 100 years later they've gone full circle.
I didnt work very well though for mobile warfare. The writing of Fuller (despite him becoming a dodgy nazi) and Liddle Hart on tank doctrine of that time is still really interesting though.
This is more just like infantry fighting vehicles without the carrying room for infantry
"100 years later they've gone full circle."
Absolutely not. If you generalize to an absurd degree as you did here maybe but not in reality.
This is just a tank meant to be rapidly deployed.
I thought the old infantry tanks were the most heavily armoured and therefore slowest in the British forces. Isn't this the opposite of that?
@@beetooex You are correct, but one of the goals here was to make a lighter vehicle so it has greater strategic mobility (you can easily put it on a plane and fly it half way around the word). It'll be interesting to see how this works out given that by the end of WW2 the concept of cruiser and infantry tank had been replaced by the main battle tank. In the US they disbanded the tank destroyer arm for the same reason that everyone had come to the conclusion that a bog standard tank was the best vehicle for all these rolls. The only thing this thing offers that an Abrams doesn't is the fact that it is lighter so it needs less logistical support.
I am getting some Leopard 1 vibes from that thing... same gun size, same engine type&HP, same speed, old Leo1 was slightly heavier at 42t with its last update and prolly slightly bigger. Leo 1 back in the days was filling the MBT role.
And a 105mm tank gun should be able to threaten other MBTs, too, at least if it can flank them.
105 is still a very potent round, i think it'll be a threat from the front for most tanks.
its a t62/72 etc roughly weight too...
The General Dynamics Land Systems MPF vehicle that may weigh 40 tonnes looks like it could be a good medium tank for the US Army. A 120mm smoothbore variant may also be worth considering adding to the inventory that utilizes the XM360 low recoil rarefaction wave technology main gun, whenever enemy MBT's are likely to be encountered. The 27 tonne GDLS Griffen demonstrator was offered with the XM360 120mm smoothbore gun over five years ago.
The 105mm rifled gun does however appear to be adequate and the best option for the main MPF requirement which is to support infantry units and much more ammunition can be carried.
HOWEVER for airborne, amphibious and difficult terrain environments such as mountainous, jungle, swamp/mud and Arctic environments a 20 tonne max light tank (without add-on armour) that is the maximum that can be carried in the C130J Super Hercules would still be worth adding to the US inventory. The other MPF candidate based on the M8 Buford from BAE Systems and originally designed by FMC weighs just under 20 tonnes without any add-on armour. This design is considerably more compact than the GDLS MPF vehicle due to its better mechanical configuration as it is not based on a IFV which makes it a smaller target and enables it to be lighter for the same level of armour protection. BAE Systems would be wise to modernise the M8 Buford base design to suit the needs of the Marines, Airborne, some special forces units as well as for the Army and to make the turret similar in operation to the M1 Abrams. It may also be possible to fit the lightweight XM360 120mm smoothbore main gun and still stay under 20 tonne for the base vehicle? It may also be possible to apply rarefaction wave technology for a 105mm rifled main gun so as to reduce recoil forces and the corresponding fatigue for the crew?
Why hasn’t allied vehicles like the cv90120 or cv90105 been considered they already exist and are proven good, or further research into the stryker mgs system. Also why haven’t we created a bmp3 style vehicle with a main gun and a 30mm coaxial gun
Cause you can't bilk the US taxpayer for something COTS. You need to start from scratch and constantly try to integrate the unlimited wants of military officers to drag out the program for years.
Because buying foreign imported equipment doesn't support the congressional coalition that supports the Army in it's requests, as against the coalitions that support the Air Force, the Navy, the Marines or the Space Force. It might do a better job and be available faster, but American voters demand their representatives bring home jobs and money to their district.
I love the striker MGS but it's become obvious that the striker chassis cannot reliably support a gun of that size.
Three words. Not Invented Here.
Three words: Military Industrial Complex
Currently, I have not found a TH-cam video showing other nations Tank Crew training path. For example, there is the US Tank Crews path. From OSUT's electronic simulator training and introduction to the platform, then their (active duty and NG) duty station training. Gunnery skills test and simulator gates to live fire prior to Crew Level Gunnery start and completion based on Strick gunnery scoring for Defensive and Offensive engagements that have to be done day and night fire with an NBC engagement. Then you have the Platoon Level Gunnery that teaches section maneuver, platoon fire commands, integration of assets like CAS, breaching force, and engineers. Maybe even a deacon lane. This also includes an NBC and Day/ night engagement with gradable criteria. Leading up to a Company level CALFEX, a Battalion LFX, and a BDE field exercise. Making those crews have to be certified tank crew from their Individual crew gunnery all the way to the NTC validation of training to certify that BDE and or DIV per the changes to the 3-0. I would like to know how that compares to China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Britian, etc.
This seems like a very clear cut good idea honestly
To be fair. A new Abrams from scratch would cost a lot more than $8.8M. The new variants just refurbish old tank chassis that were mostly built in the 1980’s.
Based on it's purpose, functions and capabilities this "light tank" looks a lot like a German predecessor. The famous "Stug"!
Yup. Everything old is new again.
@@stacymcmahon453
I should have added this has a revolving turret. The Stug didn't. Otherwise both are planned as an Infantry support vehicle. The Stug also became a great tank killer. I wonder if this vehicle will.
@@douglasturner6153 That's kond of what I was getting at. They both fill the same infantry support role and both have the additional ability to engage most enemy armor. The rotating turret notwithstanding, which is just a matter of the economics today versus back then.
It does not. The Stug was about as heavy as Nazi germanies main tank eg the Panzer IV. This is not even close to an Abrams.
As for role it depends on the Stug but none of them are similar to this vehicle at all. The assault gun variants were assault guns eg low velocity weapons meant to engage infantry and structures. This is not that at all. It has a normal tank gun if with a smaller caliber than what modern MBTs use. It is also explicitly meant to engage enemy armour.
As for the tank destroyer variants it is arguably closer though still quite different. If anything I would say it is more similar to US WW2 tank destroyers with their high mobility. Still those vehicles were ultimately modified "MBT" equivalents. Not light vehicles.
No this really is a typical light tank. It has a tank gun. It probably has enough armour to be impervious to lighter vehicles. It is also more mobile than heavier tanks.
Used to use the Javelin CLU to monitor in LP/OPs in OIF.
Army needs to make anti-drone laser kit fit on that platform, supported by multiple sensor vehicles based on the new infantry vehicle platform. This will keep soldiers and other systems safe at all terrain.
I think this is the vehicle the US army has really needed since the retirement of the Sherman in the post war rush toward heavy and eventually main battle tanks: an infantry support tank. terrible at fighting other tanks but great at helping assaulting infantry tack positions. integrated training should only increases this effectiveness.
17:33 hey! I know that yellow building! 😂
This guya thumbnail craft is amazing. That red circle is really captivating.
Just buy the CV90120. And on top of that CV9040.
cv9040 40mm cannon can take out all russian bmp:s (and older tanks) and make a building into a swiz chees (and also shoot at air targets). No need for a slow 105mm gun.
8:49 are the MPF crewman going to become tanker grunts like A10 pilots are pilot grunts?
Edit:
Also, does it make sense for the MPF crewman and the infantry they’re assigned to to live in the same barracks and do as much together as possible, or is that not a good idea?
Honestly, I have to say that the Days of "armored " fighting vehicles are drawing to a close. With each small conflict being used as a testbed, ATGMs are quickly making Tanks obsolete.